A Decade Later: Does the Q6600 Still Have Game in 2017?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
amstech
Posts: 2,661 +1,824
Adhmuz
Posts: 2,342 +1,186
Cool article, not terribly surprised by the outcome however, a 10 year old CPU is always going to be a 10 year old CPU. It was a great chip while I had it, overclocked easily to 3.2GHz, but when I sold it to a friend and moved up to the i7 920 it was night and day. That chip was as much a turning point in CPU technology as the Q6600 was in it's day, as with others it would have been nice to have it in the article as well to see what the next step could get you and then compared to the latest and greatest.
Perhaps a Seven Generation of the i7 article is coming? That would be really cool to see, because believe it or not the i7 has already been around for 8 years as well, really amazing to think from Q4'06 to Q4'08 was as long as the Core 2 Quad series was king, a short 2 years compared to how long the i7s have been the top dog with no sign of that changing. Really hoping Ryzen has what it takes to mix things up in the industry, it's been too long since anything has shown us what the future of CPUs can actually do.
Perhaps a Seven Generation of the i7 article is coming? That would be really cool to see, because believe it or not the i7 has already been around for 8 years as well, really amazing to think from Q4'06 to Q4'08 was as long as the Core 2 Quad series was king, a short 2 years compared to how long the i7s have been the top dog with no sign of that changing. Really hoping Ryzen has what it takes to mix things up in the industry, it's been too long since anything has shown us what the future of CPUs can actually do.
Adhmuz
Posts: 2,342 +1,186
If that's your idea of a "legitimate" gaming machine that's your opinion, it also depends on what games your playing on it, but don't be calling it "legitimate" call it value or budget (bargain like you yourself mention), but even at that, you can build something far more efficient that will pay for it self on electrical bill savings.
bandit8623
Posts: 505 +283
If 30 fps is playable to you more power to you. I wouldn't play a game where I only got 30fps. Especially when I have a 120hz monitor. Minimum for me to be happy is 60 frames. And I do realize though its nice still being able to use older hardware.
"silly graphics options"?
Graphics, along with the mouse & keyboard (for some), are the only reasons people game on PC. Who decided that games "look as intended" at medium settings? The more logical assumption is that their intended look is at max settings, with lower settings being offered to accommodate slower rigs. Otherwise, why would game designers even off higher settings?
*Sigh* That IS the point. Anyone thinking that a new GPU is all they really need to bring a 10 year old PC in the modern world now knows that their old CPU- while fine for surfing - won't cut it for gaming. There's nothing pointless or inaccurate about it.
Slow down there, Sparky! The 6700K in this test is an i7, not an i5. Two different beasts.
The current i5 is the Kaby Lake i5-7600K and it sells for $250. That's about a 15% increase 6 years later.
It ran stable at up to 3.1GHz and the results were shown in every graph in the article...
A) The tests WERE run at 1080p, as indicated at the top of every test.
B) By "the right card and the right drivers" you mean OLD ones, which would defeat the purpose of the article.
C) No, you can't max out DOOM using a Q6600, period... unless you mean the original Doom from 1993.
Why don't you just cut to the chase: do you use a Q6600, and find this article offensive? Why else would you defend a ten year old gaming dinosaur so vigorously? Do you think calling the article pointless makes you sound smart?
Ryzen isn't going to do anything that the current i7 can't, it'll just supposedly be cheaper. Early "leaks" show it hanging with the i7 in synthetic benchmarks and the i5 in gaming. It'll be nice to see some competition again, but performance-wise it's not going to be breaking any new ground.
Wait, what? You lost Me there! The i7-6700k Skylake in the test cost $339 at launch and $320 nowadays. Why did You jump to $250 i5-7600k Kaby, if it's not in the test?
Sorry, I thought that since you were comparing the cost of the 2500K (i5) and the 6700K (i7), and saying how things have regressed- you believed both models were in the i5 family and that prices had skyrocketed. I was then saying that there isn't a large price difference between the latest i5 and the 2500K.
It doesn't. I sold mine four years ago. And back then, it was already noticeably slower than current Intel quad models. I noticed the difference in games, apps and overall OS performance. If you still use one, I think your only excuse can be that you only do web browsing and mostly old apps/games. As slow as CPU progress going lately, the difference is still tremendous.
Yeah I replaced a Q6600 machine for someone that was breaking down with a second hand i3 4150 dual core + Z97 and it comprehensively duffs it up even with half the cores. Sips power.
If you still have old hardware and it does the job then run it into the ground. But replacing it with something vastly better all this time later is really easy and not expensive.
Not to mention the board upgrade is tremendous going from that time period. Native USB 3, SATA 3, NVMe and the like.
It was fun to see this Steve- thanks for doing this. I'd call the results of Gears of War 4 @1080P Ultra (GTX1070) impressive to say the least:
i5-2500K Avg/Min = 84/62
i7-6800K Avg/Min + 118/100
I'm guessing that Gears actually utilizes hyperthreading- otherwise the whole "i7 is a overkill for a gaming rig" mantra is bogus; 35fps+ is no joke. But again, it would be cool to see the difference between the i5-2500K and the shiny new i5-7600K. I'm thinking THAT difference is <10 fps?
Think I'll splurge for an i7 for my next rig. New games may start using HT more often. I guess we'll see what the next few years bring.
i5-2500K Avg/Min = 84/62
i7-6800K Avg/Min + 118/100
I'm guessing that Gears actually utilizes hyperthreading- otherwise the whole "i7 is a overkill for a gaming rig" mantra is bogus; 35fps+ is no joke. But again, it would be cool to see the difference between the i5-2500K and the shiny new i5-7600K. I'm thinking THAT difference is <10 fps?
Think I'll splurge for an i7 for my next rig. New games may start using HT more often. I guess we'll see what the next few years bring.
Interesting article, yet... I seem to feel it's almost like most political stories, that get tilted and molded to fit one particular side or view. The reviewer only tested in Ultra. I think while these test systems were set up, perhaps high-med-low quality settings should have been tested as well. Doing so would show the audience what compromises they are making in order to achieve playable frame rates in these games... additionally, there are other games in which the C2Q & C2D still handle just fine... Speaking of Overwatch... my son plays on a C2D E8400 paired with a 750ti... 1080p. Is it on Ultra? certainly not.. but.. it is playable and he enjoys it just the same.
Did you read the article or did you just look at the graphs?
A lot of this parts were hand me downs from family and friends. I not exactly rich and even with a job. I can barely scrap enough for food and other expenses. Let alone a game console or a nice gaming rig. So I can complain about my hardware as long I can play games. I can prob get more fps if I choose 720P Med
Amet Monegro
Posts: 76 +25
Some games are´nt compatible cos lack of SSE4.x instrucction set and/or POPCNT
Yeah, read it twice. And the two places where you call the game unplayable made me laugh. Here's the thing though, there's been other articles that basically have done what you did, but kept the expectations reasonable... Such that, to answer the question of your article title, "... does it still have game" I would say yes, however you've basically set it up for failure in your testing methodology. Can people game on C2Q's and C2D's? Yes, they can and certainly do, and I'm pretty sure they're playing more than Minesweeper and Solitaire. Here is a link to an article that pairs an old C2Q with a GTX 750, and they get playable framerates in BF4, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age Inquisition & Dying Light, GTA 5, and Witcher 3.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/whic...d-but-high-end-or-entry-level-and-new-part-2/
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/is-a-high-end-cpu-a-real-need-for-a-gaming-computer/
And for those who like to think that dual channel memory > single channel, and that more ram > less ram here's 2 very interesting articles.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/does-dual-channel-memory-make-difference-in-gaming-performance/
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/does-more-ram-improve-gaming-performance/
How's that saying go? If you judge a fish by its ability to fly....
What motive would Techspot possibly have to make a ten year old chip -with extremely limited capabilities in 2017- look worse than it is? If the 6700K is offering 3-6 times the frame rates at Ultra, it will offer roughly the same margins at other settings. Techspot didn't bother doing this because it's a waste of time on a decade-old, irrelevant cpu.
There's nothing to be "tilted and molded" here. There is no "side or view". Facts aren't open to interpretation: The Earth is bigger than the moon... a beam of light is faster than a Porsche...and modern CPUs destroy old ones in all measurable areas at all settings and resolutions.
Last edited:
amstech
Posts: 2,661 +1,824
Wow I glanced over the charts and didn't notice it there, sorry about that Steve.
Some reader I am.
That being said, I truly wonder how it would compare at similar clock speeds, I know this chip can't handle it, but maybe the Q8400 will get a little closer? God I would love to see these same benchmarks at 3.5GHz to 3.8GHz... got any dry ice hanging around?
Similar threads
